Development of prediction models to identify hotspots of schistosomiasis in endemic regions to guide mass drug administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schistosomiasis is a neglected tropical disease affecting over 150 million people. Hotspots of Schistosoma transmission—communities where infection prevalence does not decline adequately with mass drug administration—present a key challenge in eliminating schistosomiasis. Current approaches to identify hotspots require evaluation 2–5 y after a baseline survey and subsequent mass drug administration. Here, we develop statistical models to predict hotspots at baseline prior to treatment comparing three common hotspot definitions, using epidemiologic, survey-based, and remote sensing data. In a reanalysis of randomized trials in 589 communities in five endemic countries, a regression model predicts whether Schistosoma mansoni infection prevalence will exceed the WHO threshold of 10% in year 5 (“prevalence hotspot”) with 86% sensitivity, 74% specificity, and 93% negative predictive value (NPV; assuming 30% hotspot prevalence), and a regression model for Schistosoma haematobium achieves 90% sensitivity, 90% specificity, and 96% NPV. A random forest model predicts whether S. mansoni moderate and heavy infection prevalence will exceed a public health goal of 1% in year 5 (“intensity hotspot”) with 92% sensitivity, 79% specificity, and 96% NPV, and a boosted trees model for S. haematobium achieves 77% sensitivity, 95% specificity, and 91% NPV. Baseline prevalence is a top predictor in all models. Prediction is less accurate in countries not represented in training data and for a third hotspot definition based on relative prevalence reduction over time (“persistent hotspot”). These models may be a tool to prioritize high-risk communities for more frequent surveillance or intervention against schistosomiasis, but prediction of hotspots remains a challenge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".